‘Don’t call me’: Russians allowed to punish banks for spam
Lawyers believe that the judicial precedent has opened up new opportunities to combat intrusive advertising calls
Residents of Russia have been given the opportunity to monetize the spam calls they receive with intrusive advertising. The panel of judges of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having considered the case of a lawsuit filed by Muscovite Sergey S. against Bank Russian Standard, came to the conclusion that he legally and reasonably demanded payment for moral damages for the fact that the bank bothered him with phone calls without his consent. This is the first case in Russia when an ordinary citizen, rather than supervisory authorities, was given the chance to punish spam distributors financially. Read more details about the lawsuit that changed the balance of power in the fight against illegal advertising, Tatarstan's experience in this area and the prospects that the judicial precedent opens up for victims in the report of Realnoe Vremya.
5,000 rubles for an “erroneous” call
As follows from the decision of the Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow, Sergey S. filed a lawsuit against Russian Standard Bank in connection with the increased spam calls in 2023 from employees of the financial institution who offered to issue a loan. Since the man had never been a client of the bank and did not give it consent to the processing of personal data, he handed over a claim demanding that the processing and transfer of his personal information be immediately stopped.
However, the calls continued, then the would-be client recorded the incoming spam messages and went to court. For the moral suffering he experienced from being disturbed illegally, having his personal data used without his consent, being distracted from his personal affairs by calls, and being disturbed, he asked for a rather modest monetary compensation by today's standards of 5,000 rubles.
However, the court of first instance refused to compensate the citizen who suffered from spammers from the bank, citing the fact that, according to the current legislation, the processing of personal data is carried out by the operator with the consent of the subject, and there are no contractual relations between the bank and Sergey S., within the framework of which he would give consent to the processing of his personal data by the defendant, and the defendant would collect and process the plaintiff's personal data. The court concluded that in this case the defendant does not have access to the plaintiff's personal data, and the phone number itself does not allow identifying anyone. The court also took into account the objections of the bank, which indicated that the call to the plaintiff's phone number was made due to a technical error.
Sergey S. did not agree with this decision and challenged it in the appellate and cassation authorities but achieved a result only by reaching the latter.
The Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recalled that, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to privacy, and if a citizen is caused physical or moral suffering by actions that violate his personal non-property rights, the court may impose on the offender the obligation to pay monetary compensation for the said damage, while guilt in causing moral damage is presumed until proven otherwise. Since the plaintiff continued to receive advertising calls even after the bank received a demand to stop them, the panel of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the rulings of the courts of first, appellate and cassation instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Izmailovsky District Court of Moscow.
The Supreme Court rejected the bank's argument that Sergey S.'s phone number was mistakenly included in the list of bank clients' phone numbers for distributing advertising, emphasizing that such errors are not a circumstance that excludes the bank's liability.
Realnoe Vremya contacted Russian Standard Bank with a request to know whether the credit institution is ready to pay compensation to the plaintiff if the court makes a corresponding decision, and what measures will be taken to prevent illegal advertising calls in the future. The response will be published upon receipt.
When a call is not a gift
Similar cases of intrusive advertising calls are also being examined in Tatarstan. On 4 April, 2025, the Tatarstan office of the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service of Russia issued a decision on the case of distribution of advertising for investment project services via telephone call without the subscriber's prior consent. The advertisement of Innovation distributed in this way was found to be improper. The Moscow company was issued an order to stop violating advertising legislation, and the case materials were transferred for consideration of the issue of initiating an administrative offense case.
This case is far from isolated. Anti-monopoly cases of this kind are initiated in Tatarstan every month, but spammers continue to call. Head of the Tatarstan office of the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service Airat Shafigullin answered when Realnoe Vremya asked what to do in such cases:
“Unfortunately, people themselves often forget that they gave consent to the processing of their data and to receive advertising information. In such cases, advertising is distributed legally. And consent has no statute of limitations if the contract did not specify its term, even if you signed it 20 years ago.”
The head of the department advised sending a statement to the bank to revoke the consent once given to advertising calls.
However, banks (and not only them) have often sinned and continue to sin by taking the client's consent not only for their advertising calls, but also for the transfer of phone number data for the same purpose to their counterparties — companies with which banks cooperate. And in such a case, the task of revoking consent becomes impossible.
“The amount of compensation should be tens of times greater”
The recently published ruling of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 18 February 2025 No. 5-KG24-144-K2 in the case of Sergey S. means a sharp turn in the solution to the problem of spam calls. Kazan lawyer Pavel Mazurenko believes that the court was absolutely justified in concluding that the defendant's actions violated the plaintiff's right to privacy, and also caused him moral harm.
“Unfortunately, most citizens have neither the desire nor the knowledge to protect their rights,” he says. “It seems to me that the amount of compensation should be tens of times more.”
Pavel Mazurenko noted that, according to Article 9 Consent of the Personal Data Subject to the Processing of His/Her Personal Data” of the Federal Law On Personal Data, the terms for the destruction of the personal data of the subject, if the processing is carried out without his consent, vary depending on the reason: upon receipt of a request from the subject — within seven working days, upon independent detection of a violation — within 10 working days, upon achieving the purpose of processing — within 30 days, unless otherwise provided by the agreement with the data owner, upon withdrawal of consent — within 30 days from the date of receipt of the withdrawal, unless otherwise specified in the agreement with the data owner.
“If the operator cannot destroy personal data within the specified time frame, then he is obliged to take measures to block access to this data, and then destroy it within six months,” the lawyer emphasized. “Setting the term ‘indefinitely’ is illegal.”
“Court practice will have an impact on reducing the number of remote frauds”
“This court practice is aimed at preventing similar behaviour by banks in sending spam mailings or making calls to citizens,” lawyer at the Yalilov&Partners law firm Arina Amirkhanova commented to Realnoe Vremya on the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. “Citizens who find themselves in a similar situation will now be able to confidently apply to the courts to recover compensation for moral damages, taking into account the practice of the court of higher instance.”
Arina Amirkhanova believes that now there is no need to be interested in the issue of once giving the bank consent to process personal data.
She also expressed the opinion that over time, such judicial practice, having become established, will have an impact on reducing the number of remote frauds, by forming a stable understanding among citizens that only fraudsters, and not bank employees, can make similar requests and offers.
